• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Eurocall 2011, Nottingham
 

Eurocall 2011, Nottingham

on

  • 441 views

Elina Tapio, University of Jyväskylä, Eurocall 2011 conference in Nottingham: This presentation summarises my ongoing PhD research with the title The English language in the everyday life of Finnish ...

Elina Tapio, University of Jyväskylä, Eurocall 2011 conference in Nottingham: This presentation summarises my ongoing PhD research with the title The English language in the everyday life of Finnish Sing Language users - a multimodal view on interaction.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
441
Views on SlideShare
441
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • My name is ElinaTapio and I’m going to tell you about my ongoing PhD research where I’ve been looking at the everyday usage of English Language among the Finnish sign language people in order to get new insights for English language teaching.
  • A little bit about my background, which kind of explains why I’m doing this research and why I take a particular viewpoint in my research.Turku – SL interpreterOulu – majoring in English – PhD student + MAILL (MAILL project picture)Jyväskylä – Sign Language Centre, university teacher and MA programme (Something from Jyväskylä – Fennicum?)Elina TapioSign Language Centre, Dept. of Languages, University of Jyväskylä, FinlandEurocall 2011, Nottingham
  • The outline of my presentation is roughly here:First I’m going to go through the research topic and research questionsI’d also like to introduce the MDA and its practical procedure NA to you and tell a bit about the methods used in the study and how the study has been going, since I’d also like to talk about the methodology at the end of this presentationI have chosen two ‘so called’ cases to focus on today, first one is an example of some observations right in the beginning of my study, how informal met formal in an online English course, What was happening outside school and at school and how these two metAnd then on the one particular social action I have focused on: Fingerspelling of English words in FinSL context.I’ll hopefully have some time to share thoughts on research methodology, and how it has worked out in a research like this.
  • The topic of the PhDresearch :There is actually no research on thistopic in Finland, whereEnglish is taught as the foreignlanguage for FinnishDeaf, (whoarebilingual in Finnish and FinSL).I startedwithlooking at wheredo the FinnishSignlanguageuserssee, use, encounterEnglish, whatroledoes the language play in theireveryday life. Beforethis I haddone a small MA thesis on lngcontact and analysingwrittentextsbyFinnishDeaf, and quitequicklynoticedthattherewassomethingdifferentgoing on in theirwrittenEnglshthatpointed to the direcetion to the different media wheretheyseemed to havepickedupEnglishfromdifferentvisualmodes.Instead of looking at WHAT IS LACKING, I wanted to seewhatthere is in the Deafcommunitythatwouldinterestpeoplelike us. community of practice, from a socio cultural viewpoint, not only the Deaf but the people in the signing communityETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
  • Research questions (in the beginning, focused questions later) Where and when do the Deaf encounter English language?What kind of voluntary (social) actions take place in everyday life?Which resources do the Deaf use for their English learning?What could we learn from voluntary action in formal education?In the beginning I used used the word Deaf with capital D to refer to my research participants, but use nowadays terms such as SL people or SL users to show that I also include those on the outer skirts of the Deaf community, since they also share the practices of the group, including the linguistic practices.From English language learning to English language in the everyday life – WHY?What do people do? –has been the way of doing this. Getting the insiders view and the practices in the community (sometimes called in this context as indigenous practices)
  • 3. a. Methodological background: MDAHISTORICAL BODY – a lifetime of personal habits, bodily memories in the individual body (Bourdieu: habitus)INTERACTION ORDER – any of the many possible social arrangements by which we form relationships in social interactionsDISCOURSES IN PLACE – all action is accomplished in some material place in the world – all places are complex aggregates (or nexus) of many discourses which circulate through them (different time cycles, foregrounding/ backgrounding)Focuses on social action which is accomplished with or through cultural tools (Scollon 2001: 146). Thus, social action is always mediated (Scollon 1998; Wertsch 1991, 1998; Vygotsky 1978).My question has been: HOW are certain actions mediated, with which mediational means.SOCIAL ACTION: Looking at action, not only language: This turn of focus from “language only” to mediated action enables the researcher to take a wider perspective on Deaf resources; not only on sign language but also to other visual resources and practicesdeveloped within the Deaf community. As Jones & Norris, quoting Scollon (2001) say (2005: 9): MDA seeks to open this window wider; broadening the ‘circumference’ of discourse analysis to include thing like objects, gestures, non-verbal sounds and built environments.
  • NexusAnalysisScollon calls the practical procedure of constructing MDA ‘nexus analysis.’ (Scollon & Scollon 2004; Jones & Norris 2005;Hammersley & Atkinson 1995) Next the main stages of nexus analysis, which are shown in this figure. Engaging the nexus of practice: discovering the social actions and actors that are crucial. Scollon suggests various strategies to recognize them: discourse surveys, scene surveys, and – when the most crucial scenes, participants, and mediated actions have been identified – focus group interviews andreflective group discussions. (Scollon & Scollon 2004: 153-159.) This guarantees that research proceeds through ethnography-inspired scene surveys towards in-depth analyses of focal social action (Hammersley & Atkinson 1995).2. Navigating, closer analysis, mapping the social action, quite often discourse analysis, looking at the three things that make the social action (as in the previous slide)3. Changing: “MDA is not just a theoretical perspective; it is a project to promote social change.” Jones & Norris 2005: 10----3. The role of the researcher: Nexusanalysisacknowledgesthat the researcher is an activeparticipant in the community and in itspracticeswhiledoingresearch. In other words, research is not done on the participants of the community of practice but withthe participants (Cameron et al. 2002: 1-2).
  • NA in process, Starting of with the background of being in the Deaf community as a FinSL interpreter and completing my PGT on the subject (kind of), I began with fieldwork at a school for the Deaf, observing, interviewing, participating myself in organizing an English online course for the Deaf, interviewing some more, videotaping and collecting other ‘ethnographic trash’. We also had an online English course BEEHIVE, which produced lots and lots of data, and some of it I went through rather quickly when proceeding to the fingerspelling issue, but later on I went through going back to the early data and look at themagain, since after all, I now see it with different eyes after these years of analyzing the data and ‘learning’ about this as an ethnographer should do.
  • Methodological background: methodsMDAusesvariety of methods, according to whatkind of data is beinganalysed.For example, multimodaldiscourseanalysis and interactionanalysishasbeenveryhelpfulwhenanalysingface-to-faceinteractionwhereparticipantsdrawfrommultipleresourceswhenmakingmeaning.Whenlooking at fingerspelling (which I willtalk in moredetaillater) I neededtoolsfromsignlanguagephonetics in order to describewhatwasgoing on in differentfingerspellingsituations and whenuncovering the semanticrelationshipsbetweenfingerspelling, writtentext, mouthing and typing for example.(Norris 2004, Kress and van Leeuwen, 1996, -kokokirja-, Jewitt 2008)
  • 3. Background: Language and language learning My view on language and language learning is sociocultural with ecological view and interests of that. I’m particularly emphasizing multimodal view, and focusing on analyzing interaction, and everyday action. (I have used a term indigenous practices (Wilcox) for emphasizing that I’m interested in finding out what are the practices that the SL users especially have when dealing with English, since I quite early started to feel that there are highly multimodal, multilingual practices that the educators have no idea about. -language connected with kinesic, prodosid, and other visual & auditory sources of means contextualized & process-oriented Van lier)‘Learner immersed in an environment full of potential meanings’ (Van Lierkirjassa, jostavaanluku, Kramschiakans…) So, what I’m finding and how I’m viewing language and language learning has been going hand-in-hand. I would say then that my approach to learning is social-interactional, however, I have been more on the ‘description side’ and looking at small cases through many lenses, (Jewitt) but this is only the beginning actually, so I should not be worried. The analysis is strengthen by triangulation and ethnographic data.
  • Engaging the nexus of practice, starting the ethnographicresearchTHE FIRST SET DATA:Participatoryobservation, fieldnotes + emailsInterviews of the teachers (and also the pupils)EnglishonlinecourseBeehive, autumn 2004-spring 2005Onlineenvironment (Optima) logs: discussionboards, pupils’ personalfolders and chatlog.As in MDA, I waslooking at the focal social action thatwouldshedlight to the researchproblem I had. Along the way I actuallystarted to concentrateon twothings.1: I gotinterested in the media and technology in the everyday life. I had a focusgroupthat I interviewed and colleceteddifferentmaterial on that. TodayI’llgive an example of whatwasgoing on in the chatroomwhenentering to ouronlinecourseenvironment for the firsttime. 2: The secondpaththat led to look at fingerspellingactuallyopenedupwhenobserving a Englishclass at school. This is scannedfrom my fieldnotes. Scribbledwhen I tried to figure out the communicativemodesused in the classroom. The Englishseemed to emerge in manydifferentmodes, withseveralcombinations and hybrids and thatreallytook my interest. points of interest: media and technology (Project 1) & English in face-to-face interaction (Project 2)
  • BACKGROUNDHERE:Iwasactivelyinvolved for a while in a school and wehad an onlinecourseBeehive. At first, everybodywas a littlehesitantwhether the onlinecoursewouldwork. The teachersdidn’tgive me muchhopesince the pupilsreallydidnt’ writemuchEnglish and learning to work in an onlineenvironmentwas a challenge, obviously. However, I hadalreadykind of gothintsthat the pupilswereactuallyveryactive in differentonlineenvironments and usedseveraltools for communicating and networking, so I wasverycurious to seewhatwouldhappen, for example, in the onlinechatthatwehad inside the courseenvironment.And it is nice to surpriseeverybody! Out-of-school online practices and out-of-school discourse- style of writing out of school context: emoticons, capitals, - themes they talk about (who is sexy, who loves who, school is shit etc.) they are bringing informal to school context A. the way they use smileys in three different ways: not only as emotion indicators, mapped directly onto facial expression or conventionally onto facial expression, but also as illocutionary force indicator ‘I am joking now’. Dresd & HerringB. Greeting and acknowledging; also paying attention to those who are there online, but don’t say anything (teachers) C. correcting typos right after the mistake, doesn’t have to be made explicit (twocases) D. Hitting random keys on purpose for expressing something.E. Bringing ‘prosody’ in typing: (HeloooooooooooyuuuuuuiuAnu; Schoolfinistclocktwelveyeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh; Shut UP, TOMMI! F. Bringing their nicknames used in other online environments G. uncapitalizationH. Topicsdiscussed (who is sexy, school is shit) …and so on.Obviously: Someone would find the language quite erroneous, but whatthey actually accomplish: mutual topics, understanding each other, joking, mixing linguistic elements creatively, playing with language and analyzing it, paying attention to the form and right spelling, jumping from one topic to another, initiating discussion topics, highly emotional involvement etc.
  • Humour in general: I’d like to point out here what Lemke (2002) has nicely said: At the shortest timescale, of conversational interaction and repartee, the most sophisticated things we do with language are our manipulations of social situations in culturally acceptable and favored ways: humour and with, sincerity and authenticity of emotion, the power to mesmerize our interlocutors and bring them to laughter or tears. It is, in short, the affective sensibility of language use (--).- Focus on language, talking about English in English, who knows English and who not. (evaluating each other), they kept conversation IN ENGLISH, no need to.- Affordances: Recycling Meaning potential in other messages, can use structures, words, etc. of others.Reusing structures NOUN is BEST, NOUN is ADJECTIVE, Yeah repeated many times and even played with. ‘Yeah, I can say yeah’Working as a group: Building the conversationthreadtogether, quickreactions, responses, overlap, pushingothers to joinChat language hybrid between spoken and written. CMD discourses for the FinSLusers: access to spokenvariations; access to varieties(How in the case of the Deaf? For them the online discussions/SMS has become the way to know about the spoken variation of English/Finnish, etc. Examples in the data.) Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet. http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761 Accessed 10.11.2010. + Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In: D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton (Eds.), TheHandbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 614). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/cmd.pdfs.614 Hybrid between oral and written, especially synchronous CMC makes us compare CMC with spoken discourse, could be classified as ‘written speech because it includes rapid message exchange, informality, representations of prosody, many participants present at the same time, yet…computer-mediated discourse is not one type of discourse, but there are many varieties. Which leads me to say: There are many varieties of English available for the learner of English and also available to ‘use’ in participation. (Herring 2001; 2007)CMD: What kind of varities of English do the Deaf get through online discussion. Sharing the variety of codes and registeres have been considered to facilitate productive learning, especially in language learning. In the case of the Deaf, it is very easy to understand that until this day of new technologies the varieties of languages has been rather limited. However, it is important to remember that in the Deaf community English is semiotised in the forms we probably have no idea about. So, it is not the case that they are only lacking something due the lack of hearing. (Applies also to hearing in the Deaf community, music, for example, is treated in a different way.) Resemiotization (Iedema) This is the type of discoursetheyknow, knowing the wayaffordsthem to participate.
  • Analysingwhatwas happening as social action, andusing the NA vocabulary to describewhathappenedI wouldsaythat the social action of participating an Englishclasschangedratherdrastically (compared to theirtraditionallessons) in all the threeareas:Some of the mediationalmeanschanged: language: English (visual) instead of Finnish and FinSLorfingerspelledEnglish/mouthingDiscourses in place: no topic-dominance at all, multimodaltext, discourse is distributed, chatty, short, quickturns, topicalrelevancemaintained, however, only for a shortwhile, evaluativeresponsesfrom the pupils, multimodaltext (Doyouknowwearevery MAD and BAD???:D)Interactionorder: technologicalTool: onlinechat, typingwith the keyboard, becomingvisible for otherswhenpressingenterEverybodycanparticipate, interactionbetween the pupils, teachersonlytake a look at the conversation, somepupilstakingchargemorethanothers, takesplaceonline and alsophysically in the sameplace. Twoplaces at the time.Historicalbody: Literacypracticesmostlyout-of-schoolcontext, learnedwhensendingSMS’s, and differentasynchronous social media and synchronousinstantmessengers, alsotextphone. Compare to textbook, pen & paper, chalk and blackboard. Teacher’shistoricalbodychanged.Agency: producing actions that affect others and are objects of evaluation, and this also happens when the conversation becomes a thread and actions are evaluated and responded to. (Lantolf & Thorne 2006: 143): Acting individually and in group, obviously. (‘We’ in This is pupils place.) What they talk and how they talk is not prompted by teachers or me, actually the pupils themselves prompt it, invite and so on – could actually then see that since one becomes more controlling and acting the agency between the pupils is different and might be affected by their inside-group relationships that I don’t know about. (It is not so, that there is teacher/researcher and when that is away, agency is rather evenly shared.)Taking initiative, control (strong), autonomy, showing motivation and also changing motivation on doing what they are doing (I want camfrog)Incredients I have shown show strong agency, and actually we are so high up in the ladder that taking the interviews with the teachers and with the students into account this research has been empowering some of the participants, thus going to the third phase of NA: Changing the community of practice.Change in the social action because of the change of mediationalmeans. increases the agency of the pupilsAgencyempowermentchanging the nexus of practice. The thirdphase of NA alreadytakingplace in the beginning.
  • NAVIGATING THE NEXUS OF PRACTICEMoving to one particular social action, fingerspelling an English word – the action that was encountered already in the early stages of engaging phaseAnd recognised as a potential action worth analysing further. (remember the funnel!)The social action of fingerspelling an Englishwordundercloseranalysisdescribe the mediated action in focusanswerquestions of the navigationphase
  • I’ll say something about the fingerspelling quickly and it’s semantic relationship to other mediational means. People usually fingerspell when introducing a proper name or a concept that doesn’t have a sign (a word in sign language) for it. For example, I can tell you that we are now that this is a Eurocall conference were are attending here.But it is important to remember that I’m looking at English words fingerspelled in FinSL context, i.e. Finnish signer is refering to an English word with manual alphabet signs, each one is a word for a Roman alphabet grapheme.So, for example, you have an English word, languageThe written system … the spoken word. A tertiary system.The fingerspelling, the sequence of signs is in relation to the written form of the word.Finnish signers seem to favour mouthing that resembles the movement of the lips when an English word is read as written (with sound and letter correspondence) rather than producing the mouthing of pronounced English word. In other words, mouthing follows each letter that is fingerspelled. For example…
  • Three video recordedsituationswherefingerspelling of Englishwordstookplace. Two of the situationsthatwereanalysed in detailtookplace at the Deafschoolwhere I wasobservingEnglishclasses, the thirdonewascollectedlater in.Itwas a coffeetableconversationbetweentwosigners and thatwascollected in order to seedifferentkind of fingerspellingthanthosetakingplace at school.
  • videoconferencingsituationa group of SL usershaving a quizwithanotherschool VIA MSN Messenger. Theywereworking as a group AGAINST anotherschoolThe quizwas in English (anotherschoolwasfromspain), sowhentheywerenegotiagint the rightanswerdifferentways of negotiatingtookplace I wasparticularlyinterested on HOW theynegotiated the rightanswer to give in English.One person was as a secretarywhohad to type the rightanswer to besent to anotherschool, however, theyreallyworked as a groupSohere MARI is fingerspelling the rightanswer for JP here. Mari is deaf, JP is hard-of-hearing and knows SL
  • Multimodal density –lots of overlap, speaking, signing, pointingModes via different medium overlap and are on offer for the actorsThe actorsselectfrominformationthat is coming via different media and differentmodesDifferentways of fingerspelling: ratherfast to letter-by-letterAnalysis of two video-recorded situations, ‘The Aviator’ and ‘Guitar,’ reveals a general multimodality of interaction and uncovers a relationship between fingerspelling and other modes available to the actors in those situations. Analysis of ‘The Aviator’ shows complex interaction in the group of heterogeneous signers; modes overlapping via different channels are on offer to the participants. The situation is multimodally dense: in ‘The Aviator,’ participants use many modes of several languages; they speak, write, type, sign, and fingerspell. In addition to linguistic elements, participants in ‘The Aviator’ use gestures and facial expressions to construct meaning. The group is evidently accustomed to having different modes overlap and to selecting from ‘a tray of multiple modes;’ in other words, from the affordances available.JP, the actor in focus, selects from information that arrives via different media and different modes. JP makes choices, focuses, expands that focus, and shuts out certain information in order that his actions are the most efficient for the task; he uses practices identified as used by both deaf and hard-of-hearing members of the Deaf community.
  • Negotiating for the rightspelling (KITAR, GITAR, GUITAR)Adaptingculturaltools to the constraints/opportunities of the place and technology.I also consider the modification of fingerspelling a sign of an active participant managing the affordances of a situation for his or her benefit. In ‘The Aviator,’ Mari orients her body to the mutual task at hand, and by doing so, places her signing where it can be received by the recipient. In other words, one articulator, the dominant hand, is moved from its usual place to the receiver’s field of vision. The same action occurs in ‘Guitar,’ yet on a much wider scale: Suvi moves her hand while fingerspelling for different participants to see. She also adds extra movement to the manual alphabet so as to make the sign more salient to the recipient and because the visual field is restricted by physical objects and by the participants’ location. Moreover, Elisabeth Keating (2005) and Keating & Mirus (2003) have analysed similar cases in which a web-camera has led to an adaptation in the production of sign language. Signers have adapted some aspects of sign language to the constraints and opportunities of the eye of a web camera rather than the eye of the interlocutor. Changes occur in both sign space and in the location in which signs are produced in relation to the signer’s body.
  • Analysis of these instances, ‘The Aviator’ and ‘Guitar,’ led me to collect data from another type of situation involving the fingerspelling of an English word: a relaxed coffee table conversation between two native FinSL signers. I wanted to see how participants would integrate an English word into the stream of a signed conversation; how other modes, especially mouthing, would be included; and what type of coarticulation might occur in fingerspelling. My analysis of ten fingerspellings of ‘Jason,’ a proper name, concurs with Patrie & Johnson’s (2011) categorisation of fingerspelling. When the name ‘Jason’ was introduced to the conversation for the first time, a careful fingerspelling was used. The nine instances after that point clearly exemplify rapid fingerspelling with strong co-articulation and omission of manual alphabets. Most important however to an analysis of ‘Ultimatum’ is, I contend, the notion of mouthing. The signers’ mouthing followed a sound-letter correspondence similar to the Finnish writing system, strongly supporting the written form of the name ‘Jason.’ Also, the mouthing retained its form throughout the ten repetitions, while the fingerspelt sequence changed drastically in structure.
  • 1. Resemiotization: Outside the schoolenvironmenttherearemoreways the Englishlanguageenters the everyday life, ”notsecluded” butwithotherlanguages and othermodes. Highdegree of multimodality and multilingualism.. I havetried to capturethatbycollecting data of differentvariety… pictures, video-recordedinteraction, textsfromonlineenvironments, discussionsonline, interviews. - on MICRO LEVEL2. chaining, chain of mediatedactions/practices, nexus of practiceLanguage learning in real activity…You cannot, neither materially nor physiologically nor culturally, make meaning only with the formal linguistic sign system; other modes of meaning-making are always functionally coupled with language use in real activity.  (Kramsch 2002: 71-72) …students’ success is measured by their degree of engagement in discovering unplanned affordances along the way (Kramsch 1993; 2002:26)What learners are exposed to is not “input”, but “affordances (Kramsch 2002:7; Van Lier, Lantolf)Languageseen in and withothersemioticresources (Kramsch 2002:71-72; VanLier 2000:251)
  • Some thought on doing this kind of research with ethnography and Mediated Discourse Analysis especiallyLooking at social action and not only language has showed how the sign language people use diverse media and several modes in their language activity, looking at language only would have concluded in the same “English is texts, black on white” view that is what I often hear when talking about English language learning “The hearing people catch English from songs and everywhere” – English IS everywhere for the sign language people too. Ethnography is doing research with the participants, seeing in the participants eyes, yet analysing it from a distance too. Both have been very much needed: Triangulation has been essential. The outsider quite often don’t recognise the Deaf practices but try to introduce something new that would ‘solve the problem’ – on the other hand – I have noticed how the insiders start to see their everyday life differently when there is a researcher talking about it with them. Again: English is everywhere! For the future: ‘What visual and embodied practices with English language do the Deaf communities have?’ and ‘Is fingerspelling a significant indigenous practice in language learning among FinSL signers and if so, what is the nature of the practice and how does it advance language learning?’ Technology, online communities and the translocality of the Deaf community, different sign languages, international signing and how is that relating to other languages + language learning? Another thing: Very often when talking about these things in detail, people notice that there is something similar going on among the hearing language learners too. Language learning obviously is embodied, visuals, multimodal –in hands and in the bodies, ….Difficulties: Awful amount of data, multimethod approach is very difficult for a beginninger, finding and loosing the focus again and again, a problem with generalisation
  • Padden, C. 1996.  Early bilingual lives of deaf children. In Parasnis, I., (ed.) Cultural and Language Diversity: Reflections on the Deaf Experience. 99-116.Padden, C.A. & Gunsauls, D.C. 2003. How the Alphabet Came to Be Used in a Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, vol 4, nro 1, 10—33.Patrie, C. J. & Johnson, R.E. 2011. Fingerspelled word recognition through rapid serial visual presentation. San Diego: DawnSignPress.Bagga-Gupta, S. 2004. Visually oriented language use: Discursive and technological resources in Swedish Deaf pedagogical arenas. In Van Herreweghe, M. & Vermeerbergen, M. (eds.) To the lexicon and beyond. Sociolinguistics in European deaf communities. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 171 – 207.Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489 – 1522.Blommaert, J. 2008. Grassroots Literacy: Writing, Identity and Voice in Central Africa. London: Routledge.Brueggemann, B. J. (ed.) 2004. Literacy and Deaf People. Cultural and Contextual Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press.Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). Functions of the non-verbal in CMC: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20, 249-268. Preprint: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/emoticons.pdfGee, J.P. 2008.Learning and Games. In Salen, K. (ed.) The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 21 – 40. Gee, J.P. 2003. What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Hammersley, M & Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography.New York: Routledge.Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet. http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761 Accessed 10.11.2010. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In: D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. Hamilton (Eds.), TheHandbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 614). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/cmd.pdfs.614Jones, R. H. &Norris, S. 2005. Discourse as action/discourse in action. In Norris, S. & Jones, R. H. Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 3 – 14.Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. 1994. 'Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice', The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 4: 39 – 101.Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2009. 1879 – 1886. Kramsch, C. (ed.) 2002. Language acquisition and language socialization. Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.Kress, G. 2000. Multimodality. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.) Multiliteracies : literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge. 182 – 202.Kress, G. 2003. Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. 2001. Multimodal Discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication.London: Arnold.Leppänen, S., Nikula, T. & Kääntä, L. 2008. Kolmas kotimainen. Lähikuvia englannin käytöstä Suomessa.Helsinki: SuomalaisenKirjallisuudenSeura.Levine, P. & Scollon, R. (eds.) 2004. Discourse & technology. Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, D.C. : Georgetown university press.Norris, S. 2002. The Implication of Visual Research for Discourse Analysis: Transcription beyond Language. Visual Communication 1:1, 97 – 121.Norris, S. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London: Routledge.Norris, S. & Jones, R. H.2005. Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Ochs, E. 2002. Becoming a speaker of culture. In Kramsch, C. (ed.). Language Acquisition and language socialization. Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum. 99 – 120. Scollon, R. 2001. Mediated Discourse. The Nexus of Practice. London: Routledge.Scollon, R. & Levine, P. 2004. Multimodal Discourse Analysis as the Confluence of Discourse and Technology. In Levine, P. & Scollon, R. (eds.) Discourse and technology: multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 1 – 6.Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. 2004. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge.Tapio, E. The English language in the everyday life of Finnish Sign Language users – a multimodal perspective into interaction. PhD Thesis. In progress.Van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordance: social-interactive olearning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J.P. (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.Wilcox, S. 2004. Struggling for a Voice: An Interactionist View of Language and Literacy in Deaf Education. In Brueggemann, B. J. (ed.) Literacy and Deaf People. Cultural and Contextual Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 157 – 191      

Eurocall 2011, Nottingham Eurocall 2011, Nottingham Presentation Transcript

  • English language learning in multimodal environments among Finnish Sign Language people
    Eurocall 2011, Nottingham
    Elina Tapio
  • Who am I?
    • sign language interpreter
    • PhD studies – Uni. of Oulu
    • teaching at the
    Sign Language Centre
    Dept. of Languages
    University of Jyväskylä
  • Research topic and questions
    Mediated Discourse Analysis & Nexus Analysis
    Case 1: Informal meets formal
    Case 2: Fingerspelling of English words in Finnish Sign Language (FinSL) context
    Some thoughts on research methodology
    Outline
  • Research topic
    The English language in the everyday life of Finnish Sign Language people –
    a multimodal perspective into interaction
  • Research questions
    • Where and when do the Deaf encounter English language?
    • What kind of voluntary (social) actions take place in everyday life?
    • Which resources do the Deaf use for their English learning?
    • What could we learn from voluntary action in formal education?
    What do people do?
    Indigenous practices of the Deaf community
  • Mediated Discourse Analysis - MDA
    SOCIAL ACTION
    Scollon 2001; Scollon & Scollon 2004
  • Three phases of Nexus Analysis
    recognition & identification
    engaging
    mediatedaction
    navigating
    mapping, circumferencing
    Discourseanalysis
    changing
    activism & change
    Scollon & Scollon 2004; Jones & Norris 2005; Hammersley & Atkinson 1995
  • Nexus Analysis, from engaging to navigating
    Navigating
  • Variety of methods
    A VIDEO CLIP MISSING
    multimodal interaction analysis
    sign language phonetics
    … ethnography, discourseanalysis, interactionanalysis, social semiotics, …
    multimodal discourse analysis,
    virtual ethnography
    e.g. Norris 2004; Kress & Van Leeuwen 1996
  • Language learning
    Socio-cultural & ecologicalview
     multimodality, interaction, everyday action
    (also: indigenous practices)
    Social-interactional and descriptive
    Looking at complex situations through many lenses, strengthened by ethnographic data and triangulation
    Kramsch 2002; Van Lier 2004, 2000; Firth & Wagner 2007; Wilcox 2004
  • Engaging the nexus of practice
    Media and technology in the everyday life (Case 1)
    English in face-to-face interaction (Case 2)
  • Case 1: Informal meets formal
    • use of smileys
    • nicknames
    • greeting and acknowledging
    • prosody in typing
    • correcting typos and mistakes
    • hitting random keys
    • topics of conversation
  • Language learning taking place?
    • Playing with the language & humour
    10:48 Suvi > Do you know that we are very MAD and BAD??? :D
     10:51 Anu > midon t know..
    Focus on (the) language
    Affordances: meaning potential in other messages
     recycling
    Working as a group, quick reactions, overlap,
    pushing others to join
    Chat language a hybrid  access to varieties, access to spoken variations
  • Change in the social action
    HISTORICAL BODY
    AFFORDANCES
    AGENCY
    DISCOURSES IN PLACE
    INTERACTION ORDER
    SOCIAL ACTION
    EMPOWERMENT CHANGING THE NEXUS OF PRACTICE
  • Navigating the nexus of practice
    recognition & identification
    engaging
    The social action of fingerspellingEnglishwordsundercloseranalysis
    mediatedaction
    navigating
    mapping, circumferencing
    Discourseanalysis
    changing
    activism & change
  • Fingerspelling an Englishword
    in FinSLcontext
    A VIDEO CLIP MISSING
    [‘lӕŋgwidʒ]
    language
    signed (fingerspelled)
    spoken
    written
    [laŋguage]
    mouthing
  • Case 2: FingerspellingEnglishwords in FinSLcontext
    Examining the fingerspelling of an English word as social action
    • a holistic view of interaction
    What happens when fingerspelling an English word?
    What is the multimodal nature of fingerspelling?
    Other communicative modes used? Why?
    How is fingerspelling modified in a communicative situation?
  • T-H-E A-V-I-A-T-O-R
  • T-H-E A-V-I-A-T-O-R
    Multimodal density
    • Modes via different media overlap
    and are on offer for the actors
    • Modesselected and modified
    • Fromcarefulfingerspelling to letter-by-letterfingerspelling
  • K-I-T-A-R, G-I-T-A-R, G-U-I-T-A-R
    The interplay of differentmodes:
    • typing
    • signing
    • fingerspelling
    • mouthing
    Adaptingculturaltools to the constraints/opportunities of the place and technology. (Keating 2005; Keating & Mirus 2003)
  • Differentways of fingerspelling
    Changes in speed
    Changes in co-modes
    Changes in the phonetic structure
    Practices in the community
    • Resemiotization: It is very typical to have English emerging in many different ways and modal combinations
    • Chaining: writing – signing – fingerspelling – pointing –
    (e.g. Bagga-Gupta 2004, Padden 2003), i.e. chain of mediated actions
    • “Blindness to English”  awareness
    • Language seen in and with other semiotic resources (Kramsch 2002)
    • “(--) the ability to rapidly call upon alternative structures from a larger, ready at hand tool kit of diverse semiotic resources, is crucial to the ability of human beings to (--) show that they are aware of each other and of the situation” Goodwin (2000: 1700).
    To sumup…
  • Finding answers with MDA?
    • “The insiders view” enhanced with the researcher’s analytical eye
    • Triangulation is essential!
    For the future:
    • Looking at fingerspelling with large, multilingual data
    • Defining the nexus of practice
    • Other visual and embodied practices with English language?
    Challenges and opportunities:
    • The amount and data  multimethod approach
    • Ethnography creates uncertainty
  • Somesources
    Bagga-Gupta, S. 2004. Visually oriented language use: Discursive and technological resources in Swedish Deaf pedagogical arenas. In Van Herreweghe, M. & Vermeerbergen, M. (eds.) To the lexicon and beyond. Sociolinguistics in European deaf communities. Washington D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 171 – 207.
    Gee, J.P. 2008.Learning and Games. In Salen, K. (ed.) The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. 21 – 40.
    Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489 – 1522.
    Gutiérrez, K.D. Baquedano-López, Tejeda, C. 1999. Rethinkingdiversity: Hybridity and hybridlanguagepractices in the thirdspace. In Mind,
    culture, and activity, 6(4), 286 – 303.
    Hammersley, M & Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography.New York: Routledge.
    Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet.
    http://www.languageatinternet.de/articles/2007/761 Accessed 10.11.2010.
    Jewitt, C. 2008. Multimodaldiscoursesacroos the curriculum. In Martin-Jones, M. et al. (eds.) Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd
    edition, Volume 3, Discourse and Education, 357 –367.
    Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. 1994. 'Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice', The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 4: 39 – 101.
    Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2009. 1879 – 1886.
    Kramsch, C. (ed.) 2002. Language acquisition and language socialization. Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.
    Kress, G. 2000. Multimodality. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.) Multiliteracies : literacy learning and the design of social futures. London:
    Routledge. 182 – 202.
    Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. 2001. Multimodal Discourse. The modes and media of contemporary communication.London: Arnold.
    Leppänen, S., Nikula, T. & Kääntä, L. 2008. Kolmas kotimainen. Lähikuvia englannin käytöstä Suomessa.Helsinki: SuomalaisenKirjallisuuden
    Seura.
    Levine, P. & Scollon, R. (eds.) 2004. Discourse & technology. Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, D.C. : Georgetown university press.
    Norris, S. 2002. The Implication of Visual Research for Discourse Analysis: Transcription beyond Language. Visual Communication 1:1, 97 –
    121.
    Norris, S. 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. London: Routledge.
    Norris, S. & Jones, R. H.2005. Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
    Padden, C.A. & Gunsauls, D.C. 2003. How the Alphabet Came to Be Used in a Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, vol 4, nro 1, 10—33.
    Patrie, C. J. & Johnson, R.E. 2011. Fingerspelled word recognition through rapid serial visual presentation. San Diego: DawnSignPress.
    Scollon, R. 2001. Mediated Discourse. The Nexus of Practice. London: Routledge.
    Rampton, B. 2002. Ritual and foreign language practice at school. In Language in Society 31, 491 -525.
    Scollon, R. & Scollon, S.W. 2004. Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the Emerging Internet. London: Routledge.
    Tapio, E. The English language in the everyday life of Finnish Sign Language users – a multimodal perspective into interaction. PhD Thesis. In
    progress.
    Van Lier, L. 2008. Agency in the classroom. In Lantolf, J.P. & Poehner, M.E. (eds.) Socioculturaltheory and the teching of second language.163 – 186.
    Van Lier, L. 2004. The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordance: social-interactive olearning from an ecological perspective. In Lantolf, J.P. (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.
    Wilcox, S. 2004. Struggling for a Voice: An Interactionist View of Language and Literacy in Deaf Education. In Brueggemann, B. J. (ed.) Literacy and Deaf People.
    Cultural and Contextual Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. 157 – 191.